[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 105 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2115-S2117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.

                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                       TAX CONVENTION WITH CHILE



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S2115, June 15, 2023, in the third column, the following 
appears: EXECUTIVE SESSION EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: EXECUTIVE SESSION 
TAX CONVENTION WITH CHILE


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to 
consider Executive Calendar No. 1, Treaty Document 112-8.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The treaty will be stated.

[[Page S2116]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Treaty Document No. 112-8, Tax Convention with Chile

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask that the treaty be considered as having advanced 
through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the 
presentation of the resolution of advice and consent to ratification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 1, 
     Treaty Document No. 112-8, Tax Convention with Chile, and a 
     resolution of advice and consent to ratification with 2 
     reservations and 2 declarations.
         Charles E. Schumer, Robert Menendez, Margaret Wood 
           Hassan, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Catherine Cortez Masto, Patty Murray, Thomas R. Carper, 
           Christopher Murphy, Chris Van Hollen, Tammy Baldwin, 
           Jack Reed, Richard J. Durbin, Tim Kaine, Jeanne 
           Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, Christopher A. Coons, Cory 
           A. Booker.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls 
for the cloture motions filed today, June 15, be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Illinois be given 10 minutes to speak immediately and, following 
her, 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                    FAA Reauthorization Act of 2023

  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today as both chair of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation Safety but, more importantly, as a pilot who 
is only alive because of the swift actions of an experienced flight 
crew.
  I have lived the experience of piloting a Blackhawk that was struck 
by a rocket-propelled grenade in flight and entered into flight 
conditions immediately that flight simulators taught me would be 
catastrophic. But having the experience of flying in the toughest 
conditions had shown me that that was not the case.
  I have probably spent more hours in the most sophisticated flight 
simulators than any other Senator of this body, short of, of course, 
Senator Kelly, our astronaut. In my over a decade of training as a 
military pilot, every time--every single time--that we simulated a 
total loss of all aircraft avionics that would follow with a total loss 
of hydraulic power, we died in that simulator. We did this every year, 
and we simulated it over and over. It was not survivable.
  We never simulated an RPG explosion in the lap of one of the pilots 
wherein any of the crew could survive. Why did we never simulate that 
condition? Nobody ever imagined that it would ever happen and have the 
crew survive or that the aircraft would not break apart in flight.
  Yet, on that day in Iraq--on that day when that rocket-propelled 
grenade landed in my lap and exploded--we did. The aircraft held 
together, and we survived it. We were 10 feet above the trees, and we 
looked, and we had no avionics, and we could tell that the hydraulics 
were next. If we had relied on that simulator training, we would have 
done what dark pilot humor had always said, which was: You are going to 
die anyway. Let's change spots and leave a mystery for the acting 
investigators to figure out what the heck happened.
  But we didn't. We fought to fly that aircraft because our training in 
the cockpit, in real-world flight conditions, taught us that we could 
do it. Led by the expertise of my pilot in command, we landed that 
aircraft and saved our entire flight crew.
  I would not be alive today but for the in-cockpit experience gained 
through many hard-earned flight hours over a decade of training. It was 
actual, real-world experience, not a flight simulation, that made us 
prepared and ready to respond to a life-threatening emergency, with 
level heads and swift action--with instinct.
  Of course, my experience is not unique. When the hero of the Hudson, 
Captain ``Sully'' Sullenberger, implores Congress to understand that 
the combined 40,000-plus flight hours between him and his first officer 
were critical in saving 155 lives on that January 15, 2009, day, we 
should listen.
  Do you think that, prior to that day, there were any flight 
simulations of a dual-engine failure from a bird strike, followed by 
ditching in the Hudson River, by any airline? by any flight school? No. 
In fact, when that very simulation was done after the miracle on the 
Hudson, even with the flight crews experiencing and expecting the 
scenario, they still crashed time after time in that simulated 
emergency. It was pilot in-cockpit flying experience that saved the 
miracle on the Hudson.
  My experience as both a pilot, who was responsible for the lives of 
my crew and passengers in the most hazardous conditions, along with my 
commitment to my leadership role on the Aviation Safety Subcommittee, 
means that I cannot be complicit in efforts to compromise on safety for 
the flying public. There has never been a worse time to consider 
weakening pilot certification requirements to produce less experienced 
pilots.
  The year 2023 has already been chilling for our civil aviation 
system. We have witnessed a disturbing rise of near deadly close calls 
that has led the FAA to convene an unprecedented safety summit, where 
the Acting Administrator has warned that the entire aviation industry 
needs to not grow complacent because complacency kills.
  The NTSB has treated a recent uptick in near misses as a national 
crisis and has investigated these incidents to determine whether 
systemic problems are a root cause. Some observers believe the surge in 
hiring that was necessary to address the perfect storm of pre-pandemic 
buyouts and the post-COVID travel boom has simply resulted in a less 
experienced workforce that is more prone to mistakes.
  We must treat these unnerving near misses as red flags and be 
proactive in strengthening safety requirements to make sure that these 
close calls do not become precursor events to a catastrophic incident.
  The last thing we should be doing is weakening part 121 certification 
standards. We have had seven close calls most recently, and the answer 
is not ``let's reduce pilot training.'' It is the pilot who prevented 
those close calls from becoming accidents in the first place.
  As a pilot, I learned the value of real-world experience. Trust me. 
Hours in that cockpit, in the sky, matter. Simulators are a valuable 
training tool. I applaud them, and I have made use of them, but they 
are no substitute for the real thing. Lifesaving instincts are earned 
through hours of hard work and dedication through the craft of piloting 
a real aircraft with real stakes.
  Look, I know the experience of the perfect storm of major carriers 
buying out thousands of their most experienced pilots, followed by a 
post-pandemic surge in air travel demand, has created a temporary 
shortage of pilots and first officers, especially for regional 
airlines. The consequences for communities, especially with rural 
airports, have been real and painful. I see them myself in my own home 
State. I understand the temptation to cut corners or to chase the false 
promise of a quick fix to a systemic challenge. But weakening a pillar 
of our post-Colgan reforms won't magically solve the need for more 
pilots.
  Believe me. I have asked for the specifics. If we reduce the minimum 
flight hours from 1,500 to 1,000, how many more pilots would be 
available in the following calendar year? What about 800 hours? What if 
we drop it to 500 or to 250? How many more pilots would you have then? 
Yet, today, I have received no precise estimate, let alone any credible 
projections.
  At this point, I question whether the special interests pushing to 
weaken the 1,500-hour rule even have a methodology or model to measure 
the relationship between certain certification standards and the 
availability of pilots.
  I am not the only one who has stress-tested industry assertions and 
come away with more questions than answers. Last year, the FAA rejected 
a

[[Page S2117]]

petition for an exemption to the flight hours requirement and 
explicitly stated:

       The FAA has previously concluded the argument that an 
     exemption would serve to address a pilot shortage is overly 
     simplistic and does not present a persuasive argument.

  Foreign carriers that are not subject to the 1,500-hour rule are also 
experiencing workforce challenges post-pandemic. Yet they are not 
reducing their requirements. This bolsters the FAA's conclusion.
  Simply put, reducing hours, even just for restricted ATPs, represent 
a serious risk with no reward. It represents an unacceptable 
backsliding, a dangerous complacency, in an industry where complacency 
kills. As chair of the Aviation Safety Subcommittee, as a professional 
aviator, and as a private pilot, I am holding the line on safety.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to focus on the long list of other, 
more urgent aviation issues facing our country. Now is not the time to 
go backward on a post-Colgan safety system, and there has not been a 
single aviation fatality due to pilot error since the 1,500-hour rule 
was put into effect.
  Now is not the time to put corporate profits ahead of the lives of 
our constituents who may want to board a commercial flight in the 
future. A vote to reduce the 1,500-hour rule for pilot training will be 
blood on your hands when the inevitable accident occurs as a result of 
an inadequately trained flight crew.
  I urge my colleagues to uphold the 1,500-hour rule.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                      Nomination of Julie Rikelman

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in 
support of the confirmation of Julie Rikelman to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the First Circuit.
  In just a few minutes, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on 
Julie Rikelman's nomination, and, soon after, we will vote on her 
confirmation.
  Julie Rikelman has a distinctively American story. In 1979, her 
family emigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union--Ukraine, 
to be specific--settling in Massachusetts. Like so many Soviet 
immigrants in the 1970s, her family sought freedom, and especially, as 
Soviet Jews, they sought religious freedom.
  As a child, Ms. Rikelman and her family left behind the only home 
they knew. They endured the challenges of beginning anew in an 
unfamiliar country, as refugees, mastering a new language and a new 
culture. They embraced their new home and became naturalized U.S. 
citizens. Ms. Rikelman's experience as a Soviet political refugee 
shaped her lifelong commitment to the American legal system as well as 
her commitment to true ``justice for all'' and to the fundamental 
principles of the rule of law.
  With 25 years of experience, her legal career has been nothing short 
of stellar. Julie attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She 
clerked for Justice Dana Fabe on the Alaska Supreme Court and for Judge 
Morton Greenberg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
  She has worked in private practice and in public interest law, 
litigating a range of issues, from reproductive rights cases across the 
country to civil and criminal cases at both the trial and appellate 
levels. She has experience in securities law, antitrust law, election 
law, and constitutional law. Ms. Rikelman's Federal and State court 
cases have involved defamation, intellectual property, and employment 
discrimination claims. She is a brilliant legal mind and brings deep 
experience to issues commonly before the First Circuit.

  Julie Rikelman has dedicated her career to the protection of 
Americans' fundamental rights, including the rights to liberty and 
privacy, distinguishing herself as one of our Nation's leading 
reproductive rights attorneys. In 2021, she argued the Supreme Court 
case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a seminal case in 
the history of our highest Court's considering that issue.
  I have complete confidence that Ms. Rikelman will bring a broadened 
perspective, steadfast integrity, and deep knowledge to the bench. And 
I am not alone in my enthusiasm. My office has received letters in 
support of Ms. Rikelman's nomination from dozens of individuals and 
organizations, including members of the Alaska State Bar, current and 
former prosecutors, law enforcement officials, the National Council of 
Jewish Women, and many of her former colleagues.
  Colleagues describe Julie Rikelman as ``brilliant, committed to the 
rule of law, and deeply devoted to honoring the Constitution and 
protecting our civil rights and civil liberties.''
  These are precisely the qualities we are looking for in a nominee to 
a Federal appeals court. We have them in Julie Rikelman.
  It is essential that our Nation's courts reflect the diversity of our 
country, and Ms. Rikelman, when confirmed, would be the first immigrant 
woman and the first Jewish woman to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the First Circuit. That is what this Nation is all about.
  Senator Warren and I are proud and enthusiastically recommend Julie 
Rikelman's nomination to President Biden and are proud to speak in 
favor of her nomination before the full Senate today. She will make an 
exceptional addition to the First Circuit.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on cloture and then on her 
confirmation.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________